I used to think disasters were mostly harmless and inconsequential

[AntSou]

Some of the comments here are complaints about randomness ruining a player's precious path to victory. And I'm sorry, but claiming that Intensity Level 2 is too strong is just a joke.

To me, even Intensity 4 feels tame. I want my cities to suffer incredibly yet such events are actually rare and on the whole the positives surpass the negatives. Some of the best games I've had came in the form of early and crippling events and me trying to climb my way out of that mess, or getting my production disrupted in the middle of a war, or my army injured by a flooding river while crossing it, etc. But this isn't the norm. More often than not all disasters do is slow me down a bit.

Case in point is sea level. There isn't enough flood-able coast and the cost of barriers is too low. The game already tries to appease too much those players who want all things to be perfectly balanced, so the rest of us have to suffer through half-baked systems because God forbid players need to deal with a bit of unpredictability. "Let's flood coasts but not so much that they actually matter." "Let's flood rivers which disrupt yields for a couple of turns, but make up for it by increasing yields for the rest of the game."

And no, I don't want my Shamans to have a perfect understanding of all of the worlds weather systems. I already hate that you know which coastal tiles are going to flood in advance. I think such things should be locked behind techs and preferably require the completion of a scientific project, which could even contribute to a Scientific Victory. I would welcome changes in the form of technologies which allow a Civ to better predict the likelihood of certain weather events. I would also like policies and even improvements or buildings which are only available to Civs which have actually suffered through certain weather events. Unique luxuries should spawn in these locations after particularly disastrous occurrences (assuming we had the option to harvest luxuries, which we still don't, otherwise these luxuries can become an added nuisance).

I have no problem with unpredictable weather events. My problem is that first, they're generally not strong enough, and second, the ways in which the game allows us to interact with the aftermath of a disaster are pretty lame. Repair for better yields just doesn't cut it and it's yet another example of a missed opportunity.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The tech tree as a system is consistent in its application and its logic (or illogic, however you want to look at it). Turns to discover, prerequisites/tech-paths, conditions for eurekas are all laid bare.

That's ALMOST true, but the game doesn't give you full presentation regarding the benefits of a particular technology, even on mouse-over.

You do make a good point that disasters are materially worse with regards to consistency of implementation and that this is a problem.

Case in point is sea level. There isn't enough flood-able coast and the cost of barriers is too low. The game already tries to appease too much those players who want all things to be perfectly balanced, so the rest of us have to suffer through half-baked systems because God forbid players need to deal with a bit of unpredictability.

Disingenuous nonsense. What's the point of calling out arguments if the call-out can't even accurate frame them?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Games are supposed to be fun - even this one, although one would wonder what definition some of us are using based on our Posts. . .

So, just a point to Firaxis:
I've seen (and played) numerous board games and miniatures games based on the Battle of Borodino in front of Moscow in 1812.
I have never seen a game of the Retreat from Moscow the following winter: losing 50,000 men while inflicting that many casualties in a stand-up battle full of dramatic moments and actions (read Tolstoy's account in War and Peace, it captures much of the drama) is one thing, watching your army disintegrate from cold, hunger, and blizzards is another.

Specifically, it's Not Fun, because by the time you get to that point, there is Nothing You Can Do About It. Shouldn't have invaded Russia, Mr. Napoleon, or should have started retreating right after you won the Battle of Borodino, which would have made No sense at the time, but a few months later (and to historians in retrospect 150 - 200 years later) looks like the only possible 'winning move' available.

So, the answer in Civ VI is simple: Don't Build Galveston. Oh, that's right, you thought you were building Boston at the time. Too Bad, So Sad, that's the way the Cod crumbles . . .

To provide other Examples, I don't want to play Fedor von Bock at Moscow in December 1941, or build Pompeii or the ports of Port Royal or Scarborough: I can read plenty about those historical disasters without feeling any pressing need to recreate them - and to pay good money for the 'privilege' of doing so.

 

[Tuvok694]

Although by now I try to build dams as soon as I can, flooding rivers keep ruining my infrastructure.
I just had 3 big floods within 7 turns in my capital destroying every district that there was.
And I only play with disaster level 2, can hardly imagine how levels 3 and 4 will be.

 

[Victoria]

I had another hurricane, it came at T140 and took out only half of my cities infrastructure now and is a lot faster to repair.
I’m with @Boris Gudenuf on this, it would have been OK on Emperor but I was playing a tight deity game which is not easy anymore and having it happen there was unpleasant, unplanned unavoidable and while I still managed to win I did not say hey, I overcame adversity and excelled. I just though that set me back in my victory and was just a pain.

The problem is some people like it and some people do not. Now repairs of districts have been corrected I feel it is just something we have to live with in this release and hopefully they will drop in the next. It will certainly make me look at the competition for swapping, as I tried this time but with no luck.

I also do not look at all my messages because I like to play fast but every now and then I see some pillaged mines or similar in a city and just sigh and send over a 1 charge builder to fix it wondering how many turns I have been without. I’m fine with this because it is my choice and you can argue events are another form of barbs but 9 and 17 tile evens are a bit devastating when they centre the city.

For me personally it is now the thing in the game I dislike most apart from repeated pointless diplomacy like give me 7 gold. Here to hoping Humankind does not have these things.

 

[qadams]

I had another hurricane, it came at T140 and took out only half of my cities infrastructure now and is a lot faster to repair. <snip> I also do not look at all my messages because I like to play fast but every now and then I see some pillaged mines or similar in a city and just sigh and send over a 1 charge builder to fix it wondering how many turns I have been without.

NB - Builders can repair pillaged improvements without using a charge.

 

[Victoria]

NB - Builders can repair pillaged improvements without using a charge.

precisely why I have a 1 charge builder lying around.
However, a city full of fisheries requires Liang and a 7 charge builder to fix but I felt like not mentioning this type of issue because it is coastal specific but as you are trying to tell me the basics I will clarify this point.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I love setting disasters to 4 while playing as egypt. it's almost like cheating. So much floodplains yield that doens't hurt me

 

[tetley]

Or as Russia?

 

[tetley]

To me, even Intensity 4 feels tame. I want my cities to suffer incredibly yet such events are actually rare and on the whole the positives surpass the negatives. Some of the best games I've had came in the form of early and crippling events and me trying to climb my way out of that mess, or getting my production disrupted in the middle of a war, or my army injured by a flooding river while crossing it, etc. But this isn't the norm. More often than not all disasters do is slow me down a bit.

I was playing Primordial level 2, and volcanos were destroying my stuff all the time. Of course, I would have done it all over again in a heartbeat.

 

[Nefelia]

Can’t really say that I sympathize with some of the gripes here. But perhaps I am just an unsympathetic person in general.
Coastal cities suck? There are plenty of mods to choose from that make coastal cities better than land-locked cities as the game progresses.
50 turns to rebuild damaged districts? Just how low is your production? And why?
City on the coast constantly hit by hurricanes? Downsize it, focus on a single district, and run projects. Let surrounding cities absorb the unneeded tiles. A one-off hurricane is a serious set back. Consistent hurricanes are a serious strategic consideration to adapt to.

But seriously guys, get those coastal mods. Having new cities start with +5 or +6 food and hammers in the city centre due to surrounding coastal tiles is awesome.

 

[Victoria]

50 turns to rebuild damaged districts? Just how low is your production? And why?

This was a bug before the last patch, districts were costing 100% of current price to repair. If you have a coastal city with no or 1-2 hills you rely on water for your production, a hurricane would guarantee it was wiped out, not just pillaged.

Mods mess the game up and I like to test the real game, know the warts, that way I can also save a bug in a mod free game or share a game anyone can load. My choice

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I’m fine with this because it is my choice and you can argue events are another form of barbs but 9 and 17 tile evens are a bit devastating when they centre the city.

Aside from pre-t10 scouts, barbs and weather events are materially different in that players have consistent agency regarding barbarian attacks vs how much setback they present.

Adding fuel to the fire is that the weather damage is comically magnified. A single city in Civ 6 is filling the place of many IRL cities, and the scope of the game forces long time to pass between turns. If Civ 6 is to be believed proportionally, the entirety of Florida AND Georgia should still be reeling from Hurricane Irma, and would still be recovering from the damage in 2050. Yet we still see people here claiming that the disaster implementation in the game is okay because it's somehow "realistic" lol.

Coastal cities suck? There are plenty of mods to choose from that make coastal cities better than land-locked cities as the game progresses.

"Mod the game" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out degenerate interactions in a game. Changing the game oneself can get rid of frustrations, but it does not change the validity of the initial complaint/arguments about how the game should work when people want to share experiences playing the same game.

 

[Nefelia]

This was a bug before the last patch, districts were costing 100% of current price to repair. If you have a coastal city with no or 1-2 hills you rely on water for your production, a hurricane would guarantee it was wiped out, not just pillaged.

I must have missed that. I took a break from Civ, and apparently it was a well timed break. Wiping out districts rather than just pillaging them is a baffling initial choice on the part of the dev team. After all, we don't have to rebuild entire city districts from scratch when a hurricane rips through Florida. Houses take a toll, but the larger buildings make it through intact.

 

[Nefelia]

"Mod the game" is not a valid rebuttal to pointing out degenerate interactions in a game. Changing the game oneself can get rid of frustrations, but it does not change the validity of the initial complaint/arguments about how the game should work when people want to share experiences playing the same game.

At this point I'm just wondering why anyone is playing without one or more of the mods that solve the issue. If it really is a frustration, why not make use of the tools that address the issue?

Victoria stated a couple of good reasons for sticking to the core game. I can respect that... but why not make one of the coast mods a community standard rather than constantly complaining about the issue? Once the devs see that no game is ever played without X mod, perhaps they'll get the hint and adopt some of the changes for the core game.

Or am I being overly optimistic?

 

[Pure24]

I tend to steer away from ×4 disaster setting because it is a little too extreme for me, but... I kinda agree with the people saying they prefer a stronger disaster system.

Hope this doesn't sound mean: seems for a lot of people, 'fun' is winning in the least amount of turns possible. There's nothing wrong with that, it is subjective after all. You enjoy what you enjoy and nobody should tell you that you're enjoying something wrongly.
Just pointing it out... it is why there is a complaint that coastal cities were weak (and thus it is 'better' to settle inland. I disagree that it is better though. Stronger? Definitely. How good it is would be situational with what you're looking for). And then comes the issue with disasters. In short, this frustration with disasters comes from a desire to completely control every aspect of the game, because it feels kinda 'cheap' that no matter how good you are your victory can be delayed by something completely 'random'. If you're a master of Civ, you should be able to see the fruits of your skill.
To compound issues, there are the people who love the disaster system and want a little bit of randomness in their games, but do not want to be hit too hard by the game at the worst possible moment. So there's no patch or fix which will please everybody, but we all knew that.

When I'm playing the game 'for fun', I tend to roleplay. For me, it doesn't feel right to win with a half-finished empire. Aesthetics in such games matter so much (e.g. I have this thing where I Spaceports shouldn't be surrounded by any districts, aerodromes must be in the 'city outskirts'; I'd rather not have Holy Sites surrounded by mines - who even prays in such conditions?! And so on).
I find games where disasters hit more memorable than those without such misfortune. I love to hate being hammered by a disaster - and dust storms with Mali in an earth map were a nightmare in a previous game! But Hurricanes are the most painful and I totally understand why people wouldn't want them. But I also get why they're there. They're meant to make you fear the moment they spawn.

If I want to go for the quickest win, and there is a pleasure in doing that too - just something that feels good about seeing outrageous yields. Then I prefer to lower disaster settings so that my game doesn't depend on RNG. That is a compromise I've found...

PS: one of the best games I had was when I settled in snow (for the oil. Only had like 10 oil, half was in other civ borders and the other half in a 3-tile radius in this patch of snow.
Nearby was a volcano that had kept erupting. Ended up with a 6-food, 4-prod tile and a 5-prod, 4-food tile before improvements! If you're going to get such benefits off 'disasters', it's only fair that you also get damaged by them too. Not all disasters are equal, and that's okay too

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At this point I'm just wondering why anyone is playing without one or more of the mods that solve the issue. If it really is a frustration, why not make use of the tools that address the issue?

Victoria stated a couple of good reasons for sticking to the core game. I can respect that... but why not make one of the coast mods a community standard rather than constantly complaining about the issue? Once the devs see that no game is ever played without X mod, perhaps they'll get the hint and adopt some of the changes for the core game.

Or am I being overly optimistic?

Communities are rarely that unified. Even extremely unpopular mechanics that anybody with high engagement uses a mod to address will see most "players" never use it. There are many players who don't complete more than a game or two, for various reasons. At best the devs might notice a mod is more popular than others by a wide margin. But for mechanics like this that are pretty cancerous, but in the scheme of things tend to only rarely be game-changing that's not something that tends to happen.

However from a design perspective a cancerous mechanic is a candidate to be fixed in spite of that, at least if this is still supposed to be a strategy game.

~~~

That's not to say that players shouldn't try to agree and play with the mod. But the more things like this you have in a game, the less likely you'll get some reasonable consensus for community/MP games. Too easy to wind up like a Pdox game where you need a rule sheet 2 pages long with house rules, only for the players themselves to prove self-inconsistent with the basis for creating them (and uneven when applying). Much better to have the game work in the first place because professionals actually do the job better...when that happens!

 

[Depravo]

I just had a flood knock Rome (then my only city) down from population 5 to 2. It's had a serious knock-on effect on the entire course of the game so far.

I like it. At least in the early game. Trying to keep track of all the stuff you have to rebuild in an empire of 20+ cities is a pain in the rump.

 

[chazzycat]

hurricanes have not slowed my coastal settling strategy one bit. I'm settling 20+ coastal cities every game so who cares if one city suffers a setback...that's what the other 19 cities are for.

people sometimes forget this is not civ 5 - tall is bad. build more cities.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I find the nastiest storms are Blizzards. I have had huge swaths of territory wrecked playing on Intensity 4. That said, I don't really mind it because by the point where they become truly devastating, I'm just waiting for the game to end.